WASHINGTON, February 17, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - What do Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, father of the sexual revolution Alfred Kinsey, Lenin, and Hitler have in common?

All these pioneers of what some call the culture of death rooted their beliefs and actions in Darwinism - a little-known fact that one conservative leader says shouldnt be ignored.

Hugh Owen of the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation told an audience on Capitol Hill before the March for Life last month that the philosophical consequences of Darwinism has totally destroyed many parts of our society.

Owen pointed to Dr. Josef Mengele, who infamously experimented on Jews during the Holocaust, Hitler himself, and other Nazi leaders as devotees of Darwinism who saw Nazism and the extermination of peoples as nothing more than a way to advance evolution. Darwinism was also the foundation of Communist ideology in Russia through Vladimir Lenin, said Owen, who showed a photograph of the only decorative item found on Lenins desk: an ape sitting on a pile of books, including Darwins Origin of Species, and looking at a skull.

Lenin sat at this desk and looked at this sculpture as he authorized the murder of millions of his fellow countrymen, because they stood in the way of evolutionary progress, Owen said. He also said accounts from communist China report that the first lesson used by the new regime to indoctrinate religious Chinese citizens was always the same: Darwin.

In America, the fruit of Darwinism simply took the form of eugenics, the belief that the human race could be improved by controlling the breeding of a population.

Owen said that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, a prominent eugenicist, promoted contraception on the principles of evolution. She saw contraception as the sacrament of evolution, because with contraception we get rid of the less fit and we allow only the fit to breed, he said. Sanger is well-known to have supported the spread of birth control, a term she coined, as the process of weeding out the unfit.

Alfred Kinsey, whose experiments in pedophilia, sadomasochism, and homosexuality opened wide the doors to sexual anarchy in the 20th century, also concluded from Darwinist principles that sexual deviations in humans were no more inappropriate than those found in the animal kingdom. Before beginning his sexual experiments, Kinsey, also a eugenicist, was a zoologist and author of a prominent biology textboook that promoted evolution.

Owen, a Roman Catholic, strongly rejected the notion that Christianity and the Biblical creation account could be reconciled with Darwinism. He recounted the story of his own father, who he said was brought up a devout Christian before losing his faith when exposed to Darwinism in college. He was to become the first ever Secretary General of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

The trajectory that led from Leeds and Manchester University to becoming Secretary General of one of the most evil organizations thats ever existed on the face of the earth started with evolution, said Owen.

Though systematically "banished" from science, I do not know how it is possible to explain biological function without respect to the purpose the function serves. And this would be a final cause.

Precisely so, dearest sister in Christ!

It is amusing to watch certain scientists fall all over themselves avoiding the word function because the word itself suggests final cause. I suspect they consider biological function, like mind, to be an epiphenomenon - a secondary phenomenon which cannot cause anything to happen.

Rosen points to this failing in his book "Life Itself" - and clearly illustrates the mathematical model required for life cannot ignore final cause.

Thank you so very much for sharing all your insights and for those important quotes concerning Gould and "punctuated equilibrium."

Everyone knows it is Stalinist Progressives, not Christians, who infest the campi of our universities like maggots on a carcass, and who have seized control of research funding. Everyone knows that it is these same Progressives who represent the totalitarian thinking we hear endlessly from the cultural cesspool that Western Civilization has become, and that is meant to destroy the freedom of inquiry so painfully erected by Western Civilization these past two thousand years. And, finally, everyone knows that this savagery has now spread into our general popular and political culture and that we stand but one or two elections away from complete socialist subjugation.

It doesnt matter if it is called Communism or Fascism. It doesnt matter if it is called Materialistic Naturalism, or Naturalistic Materialism. It doesnt matter if it is called Socialism or Liberalism (or Progressivism). It doesnt matter if it is called Positivism or Scientism. It remains the end of the stick that stinks, and its mission is to bring an end to Western Civilization. Its success will hurl mankind back into another Dark Age of a thousand years, made all the more prolonged by a sinister and perverse Science (to borrow from Churchill). It must be opposed. No compromise.

And exDemMom, please forgive me for disagreeing, but in your schooling of metmom on the meaning of Philosophy, I believe you commit a fundamental error in equating the gathering of information (the primary task of Science) with wisdom. Wisdom is so very much more than that.

If you will go back and read metmom's posts that I was responding to, you will see that I gave an appropriate response. She essentially said that PhDs should not be granted to scientists, I guess because (for the most part), we don't delve into the existentialist nonsense that is typical of the subject philosophy. The PhD degree and the subject of philosophy use two different meanings of the word "philosophy".

As for your assertion that science is merely about the gathering of information: it is MUCH more than that. It doesn't take a PhD to gather information; it doesn't even take a person. But to analyze and understand that information, to place it within the context of a greater body of knowledge, to use that information to make predictions about other information which is currently unknown, and then to design the appropriate experiments to gain that new information--that takes a certain kind of thinking. There is both knowledge and wisdom--both meanings of the Greek word sophos--involved.

506
posted on 03/10/2012 3:22:52 PM PST
by exDemMom
(Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)

Your logic is flawed - you start with the false statement: "Popper stated that all theories must withstand attempts at falsification." Again, to paraphrase, he said that the more a theory survives attempts to falsify it, the more confident we can be in the theory. We cannot be confident in theories which cannot be falsified.

Restating an idea in different terms does not make the restatement a false statement.

In my view, so-called "theories" in the historical sciences - e.g. evolution biology, archeology, anthropology, Egyptology - are more akin to paradigms. Or if you prefer a blueprint into which new evidence is fit.

But unlike the hard sciences (e.g. physics) where falsification of the theory causes the theory to be discarded - if the evidence will not fit the historical science paradigm, then it is explained away with a "just-so" amendment to the story.

Again, you are making a false dichotomy between supposed "historical" sciences (e.g. biology) and "hard" sciences (e.g. physics).

I'm not even going to try to imagine how you think biologists do their work, but doesn't it raise the slightest bit of doubt in your mind that, in 170+ years, no one has falsified the ToE? Do you really think no one has tested the theory? Since the GIGO paradigm (garbage in, garbage out) applies to biology and every other science as much as it applies to computer programming, doesn't the fact that the last 170 years have seen great medical and biological advances make you hesitate even the slightest in dismissing out-of-hand the unifying theory of biology that allowed for those advances?

Not that I expect any literal creationist to actually want to learn anything about genuine science, but if you are going to claim that we life scientists do not test our theories, you have to provide evidence. Cherry-picked quotes from literal creationist websites don't count. One place to start looking for that evidence would be www.pubmed.org. Other places would be the various scientific societies: AAAS, ASM, ACS, etc.

I fully understand why literal creationists invest so much effort into criticizing science and the scientific method. Unfortunately, no matter how much you criticize scientists for not doing so, they cannot provide evidence that Genesis is a literal account. I suggest that if you feel your faith troubled by the lack of concrete evidence, you need to meditate and learn to accept it.

507
posted on 03/10/2012 9:13:34 PM PST
by exDemMom
(Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)

If you will go back and read my post #479, you will see that I expressed no opinion on moms quarrel with your use of the term philosophy, but focused rather on your equation of information gathering with wisdom. There are PhDs in Philosophy, but there are also PhDs in medicine, law, physics, theology, and any number of other academic endeavors. There are, I believe, even PhDs in the areas of Black Studies, Gender Studies, and Womens Studies. Generally, all any of these PhDs mean to me is that advanced academic work has been done in the subject specified, the relative value of any given subject aside. Do not pretend that you are having the same conversation with me as with metmom (no offense, mom ). I am not into the relative values or importance of various PhDs.

To get from information gathering to wisdom you seemed to feel obliged to use knowledge as a portal: knowledge | noun 1; facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject (my MAC OSX dictionary; an Oxford Dictionary product, I believe).

Gets you a little closer, I guess, if only marginally. You go on to declare that science is so much more than information gathering, and illustrate your point by describing an ever more sophisticated and elaborate method for gathering information. Admirable, laudatory even, but simply a more sophisticated and elaborate method of information gathering.

we don't delve into the existentialist nonsense that is typical of the subject philosophy.

Existentialist nonsense such as all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights? Existentialist nonsense such as In the beginning? (That there was a beginning at all was not commonly acknowledged by Science until 1964, but it was known to nonsensicalists from earliest recorded history if not before). Existentialist nonsense such as the concept freedom of inquiry without which the Science you tout as the fount of all wisdom would not even exist? Existentialist nonsense such as freedom of association without which you and I would not even have a forum on which we could gather and argue? Old hat, you say? Past glories, long forgotten? OK, something more modern.

E=mc2

A simple formula (which physicists now say may be wrong). It enabled Mankind to unlock the secrets of the atom (at least some of them). So tell me, which part of Einsteins magnificent inspiration impelled the Truman Administration to go into days of agonizing Existentialist nonsense before a decision was made to drop the bomb that ended WWII? There was no scientific reason to not just go ahead and drop the bomb without a moments hesitation beyond the technical considerations involved in the bombs effective delivery.

Which leads us to the issue; whence comes the ethics of science? Are there any ethics in science? Should there be (think the Tuskegee study)?

Granted, there is a lot of Existentialist nonsense out there, but before you start contentedly counting the ways, let me remind you of all the blind alleys and sidetracks that Science has gone galloping happily down, and of the raging snit into which scientists fall whenever they are reminded of those galloping goofs.

From his book In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life (emphasis mine)

For example, the evolution of Man is said to have been driven by improvements in posture, brain size, and the coordination between hand and eye, which led to technological achievements such as fire, the manufacture of tools, and the use of language. But such scenarios are subjective. They can never be tested by experiment, and so they are unscientific. They rely for their currency, not on a scientific test, but on assertion and authority of their presentation.

The article above (which also appears in Geology) is a valiant effort to defend the historical sciences - however, I'm quite certain discoveries in archeology will never be as respected as discoveries in physics.

I'm certain because within the historical sciences the absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence whereas in the experimental sciences (especially the hard ones like physics) the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Interestingly, in the conclusion of her article, she observes:

"Insofar as they are concerned with identifying particular past causes of current phenomena, historical researchers cannot directly test their hypotheses by means of controlled experiments. They can, however, proliferate alternative explanations for the traces they observe and then search for a smoking gun to discriminate among them."

It would certainly be an improvement for evolution biologists to proliferate alternative explanations for the fossil record - but in reality, the theory of evolution is treated as dogma or axiomatic. It is a "given."

Alternative explanations are not seriously entertained.

So, ironically, in attempting to defend the historical sciences the author has revealed the poison pill of evolution theory.

For example, the evolution of Man is said to have been driven by improvements in posture, brain size.... But such scenarios are subjective. They can never be tested by experiment, and so they are unscientific. They rely for their currency, not on a scientific test, but on assertion and authority of their presentation.

Spirited: In other words, an “unseen something,” an “energy-force” mysteriously “drives” improvements. It cannot be seen or sensed in any way thus fails to meet rigorous scientific standards.

But because contemporary antitheist Gnostics (i.e. Lewontin, Dawkins) demand that God’s foot not be allowed in the door, they do what they must and brazenly foist a great deception off onto a gullible public. Make them believe a lie. Make the lie credible by dressing it up as modern science. Force everyone to partake of the lie by teaching it as science education. And destroy anyone who questions the lie. Destroy their good name. Paint them as insane, authoritarian, fundamentalist, antiscience, backwards, superstitious-—say anything so long as they are utterly destroyed.

We are talking here about the doing of evil. Even though man deceives himself into believing that he can lie, betray, and destroy and yet remain “good,” he cannot. For no man can think, speak, and do evil without becoming evil.

But because contemporary antitheist Gnostics (i.e. Lewontin, Dawkins) demand that Gods foot not be allowed in the door, they do what they must and brazenly foist a great deception off onto a gullible public. Make them believe a lie. Make the lie credible by dressing it up as modern science. Force everyone to partake of the lie by teaching it as science education. And destroy anyone who questions the lie. Destroy their good name. Paint them as insane, authoritarian, fundamentalist, antiscience, backwards, superstitious-say anything so long as they are utterly destroyed.

For the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" - which documents the persecution of scientists who offer alternative explanations to evolution theory - Ben Stein interviewed Dawkins and asked him point blank under what circumstances intelligent design could have occurred. Dawkin's answer put him in the same ballpark with Crick, i.e. panspermia (alien seeding.)

After-the-fact, Dawkins tried to minimize his own remarks in this essay (emphasis mine and notice the egomania of the first sentence):

Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists' whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity -- and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently -- comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings.

The underlined part is his statement of faith (Dawkins is a notorious atheist.)

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

Again, I have underlined the atheist statement of faith.

And to quote the article I linked in my previous post to this thread, historical sciences (like evolution biology) improve their respectability among the science disciples when they proliferate and seriously entertain alternative explanations for the historical record:

Insofar as they are concerned with identifying particular past causes of current phenomena, historical researchers cannot directly test their hypotheses by means of controlled experiments. They can, however, proliferate alternative explanations for the traces they observe and then search for a smoking gun to discriminate among them.

But scientists entailed in the sphere of evolution theory based research dare not do this - because alternative explanations (e.g. panspermia) open the door to supernatural intelligent designers, i.e. God - and very often herald the end of their careers or reputation ("Expelled.")

You quote Lewontin quoting Lewis Beck to the effect: To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

A few questions from a scientific illiterate: From a Materialists perspective would not a miracle be viewed as an unexplained natural phenomenon? Are there not, a great number of unexplained natural phenomena? One such example being the Cambrian Explosion? A very large example? Does not the Cambrian Explosion offer the prospect of a falsification of the Theory of Evolution? Subject as always, of course, to further discovery? Would not the term a sudden burst of evolution amount to a contradiction in terms? Could not the hostility of Science to the term miracle be explained as a negative reaction to the suggestion represented by miracle, that Science cant reasonably claim that it holds the promise that ultimately nothing is beyond its comprehension?

Are not alternative explanations (be they miracles or something else) consequently a threat to Materialistic orthodoxy?

Thank you oh so very much for your encouragements, dear YHAOS, and for your questions!

From a Materialists perspective would not a miracle be viewed as an unexplained natural phenomenon?

Yes, indeed. I believe betty boop will confirm that our correspondents over the years often replied to unexplained phenomena with remarks such as "a naturalistic explanation would be forthcoming in a few decades." That of course is a statement of faith though they protested it was not.

Are there not, a great number of unexplained natural phenomena?

Certainly! Earlier I mentioned the rise of autonomy, syntax and semiosis and the temporal non-locality of maintenance/repair functions (final cause.) There is also no materialistic explanation for the beginning of space/time, inertia, information (successful communication, Shannon) and so on. The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences (Wigner, Vafa et al) also defies explanation.

One such example being the Cambrian Explosion? A very large example?

Does not the Cambrian Explosion offer the prospect of a falsification of the Theory of Evolution? Subject as always, of course, to further discovery?

Would not the term a sudden burst of evolution amount to a contradiction in terms?

It was taken quite seriously. The reaction however was to revise the 'gradual change over time' model to allow for sudden bursts followed by stasis (punctuated equilibrium.) And of course, the appeal that invertebrates do not leave fossils.

But as yet there is no adequate explanation for why body plans arose in the Cambrian but new body plans did not arise in periods following large extinctions. In other words, if the circumstances were right for the Cambrian Explosion - they should have been right again after mass extinctions.

Could not the hostility of Science to the term miracle be explained as a negative reaction to the suggestion represented by miracle, that Science cant reasonably claim that it holds the promise that ultimately nothing is beyond its comprehension?

Absolutely.

Indeed, the most theological statement to ever come out of modern science (Jastrow) was back in the 60's after the mounting CMB measurements. The measurements showed there was a beginning of real space and real time. In other words, space and time do not pre-exist but are created as the universe expands.

This not only put all steady state theories in the archives but sent the physical cosmologists into a tailspin attempting to obviate the obvious: God the Creator of the beginning.

But none of the physical cosmologies offered since (multi-verse, multi-world, ekpyrotic, cyclic, imaginary time, etc.) were able to explain the beginning of real space and real time.

In the absence of space, things cannot exist.

In the absence of time, events cannot occur.

Both space and time are required for physical causation.

So in effect, evidently to keep the religious at bay the physical cosmologists popularized variations of the multiple universe theories, e.g. this universe was spawned from a previous one which was spawned from a previous one and so on. The theories amount to nothing more than "moving the goalpost" - relegating the issue of the beginning of space and time to some prior universe.

The issue does not go away, but it makes it easier for the atheists to ignore.

Atheism requires the plenitude argument, that anything that can happen, did. They lost the steady state universe model but must have hope in an infinity past in order to consider themselves bright in denying God the Creator.

It's a shell game. We are not fooled or amused.

By the way, we see similar goalpost moving in the reaction to the unexplained phenomenum of information content of DNA. Here they appeal to panspermia. In effect, if it cannot be explained by material/efficient cause on earth then appeal to alien seeding for final cause. IOW, they are saying that "aliens are ok in a clinch, but the word "God" is obscene and not to be mentioned in public..."

Are not alternative explanations (be they miracles or something else) consequently a threat to Materialistic orthodoxy?

There does not appear to be a problem proliferating alternative explanations providing those explanations do not entail the possibility of a supernatural cause. For instance, several different explanations for a geological formation may be entertained as long as God need not be mentioned.

I think the reasoning behind elevating his importance must go something like this:

Popper stated that all theories must withstand attempts at falsification. The Theory of Evolution has never been falsified. The Theory of Evolution cannot possibly be true (according to the literal creationist). Therefore, no one has ever tried to falsify it.

Of course, that kind of reasoning is extremely circular.

Please, actually read Popper, not paraphrases of folks who purport to have read him.

who is relatively unknown among scientists

It's always a mistake to assume one's own ignorance to be characteristic of others in one's own profession. Karl Popper is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century. He was also a social and political philosopher of considerable stature, a self-professed critical-rationalist, a dedicated opponent of all forms of scepticism, conventionalism, and relativism in science and in human affairs generally, a committed advocate and staunch defender of the Open Society, and an implacable critic of totalitarianism in all of its forms. One of the many remarkable features of Popper's thought is the scope of his intellectual influence. In the modern technological and highly-specialised world scientists are rarely aware of the work of philosophers; it is virtually unprecedented to find them queuing up, as they have done in Popper's case, to testify to the enormously practical beneficial impact which that philosophical work has had upon their own.

So much for his being "relatively unknown among scientists."

Please note that I did not comment on anything Popper may or may not have said, nor will I. I figure that after being filtered through "creation science" think tanks, his true meaning is as distorted as the original meaning of a Chinese document machine translated into English through the intermediaries of Norwegian and Swahili. The paragraph after the colon was an expression of my hypothesis as to why literal creationists seem to think Popper is important. So far, a few posts of others on this thread are consistent with my hypothesis, and no posts contradict it.

I will point out that your link to the Popper bio bit goes to the Stanford philosophy department. That does not support the hypothesis that Popper is influential or well-known among scientists. Out of curiosity, I went back and checked the indices of various textbooks: Molecular Biology of the Cell, Genes IV, Cell, Physics, Genetics, Biochemistry, etc. In none of them did I find mention of Popper. True, not all of them mention names in the indices, but even among those textbooks that index scientists by name, I did not find Popper mentioned. Then I went to PubMed and did a search on popper, karl, which returned 72 items, of which 9 (12.5%) were articles having Popper, HH, as an author and were therefore unrelated to the subject of my search.

So much for the contention that Popper is either well-known or influential among scientists.

515
posted on 03/11/2012 3:05:42 PM PDT
by exDemMom
(Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)

Thanks, Alamo-Girl, for the comeback. Its nice to know that Im batting around 700 in one of my few excursions into Science.

It (the sudden burst of evolution hypothesis) was taken quite seriously. The reaction however was to revise the 'gradual change over time' model to allow for sudden bursts followed by stasis (punctuated equilibrium).

An example, I take it, of what you call a just-so story. A narrative, unverifiable and unfalsifiable, but held to be valid, contradicting a theory that likewise continues to be held valid.

The theories (multiple universe) amount to nothing more than "moving the goalpost" - relegating the issue of the beginning of space and time to some prior universe.

Another just-so story about which, no evidence exists, I presume?

There does not appear to be a problem proliferating alternative explanations providing those explanations do not entail the possibility of a supernatural cause.

I take your point. Nevertheless, I foresee a threat posed by any emerging explanation. Accommodations must be proffered. Accommodations threaten upsetting the existing apple cart. The Cambrian Explosion, for instance.

Its interesting to note that Dawkins has gone from a flat scientific affirmation of Atheism, to the more reasonable attitude of Agnosticism. We must think that this change of mind has been caused by the terrific intellectual headwinds he has been bucking by attempting to pass off a statement of faith (as A-G describes it) as a scientific fact of ontological certitude.

Dawkins has done this before (retreat from an Atheistic attitude to a more moderate Agnostic perspective), so dont be surprised if you find him back later at the same old Kool Aid stand, selling the same old Atheist Kool Aid on the same old street corner.

your link to the Popper bio bit goes to the Stanford philosophy department. That does not support the hypothesis that Popper is influential or well-known among scientists.

I am truly astonished to discover that you apparently hold no one to be of account who is found in a philosophy department (or in a encyclopedia of philosophy?). Really?! Scientists are held to be of no account if they are associated with Philosophy?

I did a quick check on a few names in my Oxford Companion to Philosophy (new edition). Just a few. Imagine what I found: Niels Bohr - Danish physicist who made fundamental contributions to understanding atomic structure and quantum mechanics. Nicolaus Copernicus - the first astronomer to formulate a scientifically-based heliocentric cosmology that displaced the Earth from the center of the universe. René Descartes - philosopher, mathematician, scientist, and writer. Albert Einstein - theoretical physicist - widely considered one of the greatest physicists of all time. Galileo Galilei - Italian physicist, mathematician, astronomer, and philosopher. Sir Isaac Newton - an English mathematician, physicist, astronomer, alchemist, and natural philosopher. Max Planck - discoverer of quantum physics. Aristotle - Greek philosopher and scientist.

Apparently, none of these worthies fit your definition of influential or well-known among scientists.

It seems exDemMom rephrased Popper's statement, quote: "Popper stated that all theories must withstand attempts at falsification," when he didn't say that at all. What he said (in effect) was: "keep on trying to falsify your theories; the more they can survive falsification tests, the more confidence we can have that our theories are correct, thus reliable."

My paraphrasing was an accurate assessment of the Popper quote that was posted earlier. Being able to rephrase an idea in one's own words is the best demonstration one can make of one's comprehension of the idea. The corollary that once falsified, a theory is no longer a theory, is implicit. Still, as far as I can tell, the only reason for throwing around this particular Popper quote is to introduce by inferrence the notion that the Theory of Evolution is untested and untestable, without actually having to present evidence to support that notion (because such evidence does not exist).

This is precisely what the historical sciences, most notably including Darwinist theory, refuse to do. They don't try to falsify their theory. Rather, they select evidence on the basis of what can validate their theory and ignore all the rest  anything to uphold the "just-so story," even though it is increasingly difficult to do that.

Once again, you brought up this false dichotomy between "historical" disciplines (biology) and "real-time" disciplines (physics). If, in fact, biologists do not try to falsify their theory, it should be trivial to find evidence of that. Just look in PubMed (www.pubmed.org) and find some research articles that illustrate that we do not try to falsify our theories. Show your evidence here, with appropriate quotes and links back to the original articles, and explain how they fail to include tests designed to falsify incorrect theories, and what those tests should have been.

I see Stephen Jay Gould quoted a lot here. No doubt he's rolling in his grave right now, seeing his work which was essential to helping to refine the ToE, taken out of context to try to show that he didn't think evolution occurred. Selectively quoting people to make it look like they're proving exactly the opposite of what they thought is actually quite a common meme when it comes to anti-science movements; it is not surprising to see that meme pop up here.

519
posted on 03/11/2012 6:35:42 PM PDT
by exDemMom
(Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)

I have been thinking about why this particular person, who is relatively unknown among scientists . . .

Relatively unknown? Really?!

Absolutely, Karl Popper is almost unknown among scientists. I do not recall ever hearing his name before, either during the several years I spent in college getting my PhD, or in any of the thousands of research/review articles I have read. In post #515, I explained how I checked my textbooks and the largest, oldest, most complete, and up to date scientific database in existence, and found very little mention of him.

I honestly do not expect the majority of scientists to be aware of the work of even major philosophers, even if those philosophers tried to phrase scientific methodology in the existentialist mumbo-jumbo language of philosophy. Philosophy (the discipline) is almost the antithesis of what science is all about: a very lot of thought exercises, which have no evidentiary basis whatsoever. I have no use for it.

520
posted on 03/11/2012 6:57:57 PM PDT
by exDemMom
(Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)

But can man who is without doubt both Dr. Jekyl and evil Mister Hyde take hold of such enormous power (Tolkiens One Ring) without falling into great evil? The witness of the Soviet Union where from 60,000,000-100,000,000 men, women, and children were liquidated literally screams no!

As you pointed out, the secular state controls science education, meaning that just as was the case in the Soviet Union, science is the only source of knowledge and the only people capable of knowing and/or correctly interpreting knowledge are Gnostic adepts occupying positions of power and influence throughout our culture, meaning from Hollywood to academia, the White House, Congress, Supreme Court, etc.

The Soviet Union had almost no use for science, and executed most of its scientists. The Soviets tried to substitute an ideology in the place of biology (Lysenkoism), which was an utter failure that put Russia so far behind in the biological sciences that their research is still hindered by it today. The USSR allowed some physicists to live, but only because they could design the war machinery and weapons needed for the USSR's expansionist goals.

Science and scientists are not to blame for the pogroms and mass starvations that swept the USSR. Put the blame where it belongs, with the socialist sociopaths who were in charge.

521
posted on 03/11/2012 7:07:09 PM PDT
by exDemMom
(Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)

An example, I take it, of what you call a just-so story. A narrative, unverifiable and unfalsifiable, but held to be valid, contradicting a theory that likewise continues to be held valid.

All theories are subject to revision as new knowledge is discovered. That is how science advances.

Theory: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine. (from www.dictionary.com)

Echoing the scientific philosopher Karl Popper, Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time states, "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state, "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." The "unprovable but falsifiable" nature of theories is a necessary consequence of using inductive logic.

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable.

Additionally, a theory is generally only taken seriously if:It is tentative, correctable, and dynamic in allowing for changes as new facts are discovered, rather than asserting certainty.

By any of these measures, the Theory of Evolution is valid scientific theory. I've used it many times to make testable hypotheses.

526
posted on 03/11/2012 9:00:28 PM PDT
by exDemMom
(Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)

Dawkins has done this before (retreat from an Atheistic attitude to a more moderate Agnostic perspective), so dont be surprised if you find him back later at the same old Kool Aid stand, selling the same old Atheist Kool Aid on the same old street corner.

Indeed, he is not merely a non-believer, he is an activist for atheism. He is after all a vice president of the British Humanist Association

I agree with betty boop that your rephrasing of Popper's views is inaccurate. But let's allow Popper to speak for himself. Follow this link to read his speech at the Stephen Jay Gould website: Science as Falsification (Sir Karl Popper.)

Also, I'd like to clear up some confusion over the terms I have been using which evidently have resulted in your claiming a "false dichotomy."

Moreover, I'm focusing on the philosophical divide between them. To the historical sciences, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. To the hard sciences, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

The divide is so great, the historical sciences are often seen as inferior to the hard sciences. Physics, for instance, is often seen as far more rigorous and reliable than archeology.

That said, the opposite of "hard" science is "soft" science, e.g. psychology, social sciences. Such disciplines are so far removed from either historical or hard sciences, they are not even relevant in this discussion.

In most cases, "soft" sciences do not use a historical record for evidence, e.g. psychology. To whatever extent they do, they would be considered "historical" sciences, e.g. anthropology.

When examining methodology, the opposite of "historical" science is "experimental" science and chief among the "experimental" sciences are the "hard" sciences, e.g. physics and chemistry.

exDemMom: The Soviet Union had almost no use for science, and executed most of its scientists

Spirited: Wrong. Marxist Communists billed themselves as scientific. Their socialism was scientific materialism, punctuated equilibrium, and natural selection applied to man, the question of evil, the question of who should live and who should die,and how man should live:

” Since Marxist dialectic requires a theory with clashes (thesis and antithesis) and leaps (synthesis), Marxists (had) all but abandoned Darwinism and instead...embraced punctuated equilibrium. “Many people confound dialectic with the theory of evolution,” noted G. Plekhanov. “Dialectic is, in fact, a theory of evolution. But it differs profoundly from the vulgar (Darwinian) theory of evolution.” (Fundamental Problems of Marxism, 1929, p. 145, quoted in The Materialist Faith of Communism, Socialism, and Liberalism, L. Kimball, American Thinker, Feb. 2008)

The Black Book of Communism has this to say:

“As master of the knowledge of the evolution of social species, Lenin decided who should disappear by virtue of having been condemned to the dustbin of history. From the moment that a decision had been made on a “scientific” basis that the bourgeoisie represented a stage of humanity that had been surpassed, its liquidation as a class and the liquidation of the individuals who actually or supposedly belonged to it could be justified.” p. 752

The authors of The Black Book of Communism concludes that crimes against humanity are the consequence of a scientific-ideology that strips people of their humanity and reduces them to a “particular condition, be it biological, racial, or sociohistorical.” p. 752

The tendency of evolutionary scientistic thinking is to destroy the vision of man as imageo Dei by perceiving him instead as a creature helplessly driven and primarily determined by laws of matter and force, and this was for GK Chesterton a most vile foolishness:

“Something in the evil spirit of our times,” he wrote, “forces people always to pretend to have found some material and mechanical explanation” for their own evil actions and those of others.

Chesterton concluded that the whole host of materialist fallacies derives from the imperialistic arrogation by scientism of the duties, rights, and truths of philosophy.

By virtue of the West’s “sham science” the:

“stupidest or wickedest action is supposed to become reasonable or respectable, not by having found a reason in scientific fact, but merely by having found any sort of excuse in scientific language.” (The Restitution of Man: CS Lewis and the Case Against Scientism, Aeschliman, p.p. 42-43)

“An age of science is necessarily an age of materialism,” declared Hugh Elliot early last century, “Ours is a scientific age, and it may be said with truth that we are all materialists now.” (Darwin Day in America, John G. West, xiv)

Scientific materialism, naturalism and evolutionary conceptions have virtually displaced America’s founding Christian worldview with the result that materialism is now the operative assumption for much of our government, culture, politics, and law.

According to the inner logic of scientific materialism, “we the people” are nothing but socially-constructed atomized robots “helplessly driven and primarily determined by laws of matter and force,” leaving the door wide open to massive evil-doing by America’s “ruling class,” as Angelo Codevilla calls these evil willed parasites in his book, “The Ruling Class: How They Corrupted America and What We Can Do About It.” The “faith” of the Ruling Class consists primarily of “science and evolution” and utter contempt for the scientifically dehumanized masses.

So what can we do about the Ruling Class? There really is only one thing we can and must do. That is to utterly reject and loudly denounce scientific materialism and evolutionism on one hand and on the other to turn back to the supernatural Triune Creator and supernatural creation ex nihilo.

Robert Jastrow (b. 1925), recipient of NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Studies explains there are only two possible explanations for the origin of life: evolution and creation.

“...science has no...answer to the question of the origin of life on earth. Perhaps (life) is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited: either life was created...by the will of a being outside...scientific understanding, or it evolved...spontaneously through chemical reactions...in nonliving matter...The first theory...is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith (which assumes) that the scientific view...is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief.” (Until the Sun Dies, Jastrow, 1977, pp. 62-63)

Ideas have consequences. Good ideas, such as those on which this nation is founded led to good, not perfection mind you, but overall good. Evil ideas naturally lead to evil. And some of the most evil ideas of all are scientific materialism, naturalism and evolutionary conceptions, all of which say at bottom: There is no God but man.

Really?! Youve previously informed us (in #512 and #520) that you had never heard of Karl Popper. (Karl Popper is almost unknown among scientists. I do not recall ever hearing his name before)

Apparently this thread has made you acquainted with the mysterious and obscure Karl Popper. Further, it would appear that even so eminent and acclaimed a modern scientist as Stephen Hawking knows of the nebulous Mr. Popper (as do most all scientists, if the truth be acknowledged).

Now youre having a continuing discussion on Mr. Popper with a few other correspondents, so I will leave you to your discussions, following its progress with interest.

In the meantime, the observations you attribute to Mr. Hawking represent a brief summation of two thousand years thinking of Western Civilization Philosophy on the subject of the Scientific Method upon which hangs the entire future of your chosen career.

Thank you so much for your wonderfully informative essay-posts, dear spirited irish!

In the link to Popper's speech from my post 529, you'll notice that Popper had a lot to say about Marx including this (emphasis mine:)

Astrology did not pass the test. Astrologers were greatly impressed, and misled, by what they believed to be confirming evidence  so much so that they were quite unimpressed by any unfavorable evidence. Moreover, by making their interpretations and prophesies sufficiently vague they were able to explain away anything that might have been a refutation of the theory had the theory and the prophesies been more precise. In order to escape falsification they destroyed the testability of their theory. It is a typical soothsayer's trick to predict things so vaguely that the predictions can hardly fail: that they become irrefutable.

The Marxist theory of history, in spite of the serious efforts of some of its founders and followers, ultimately adopted this soothsaying practice. In some of its earlier formulations (for example in Marx's analysis of the character of the "coming social revolution") their predictions were testable, and in fact falsified.[2] Yet instead of accepting the refutations the followers of Marx re-interpreted both the theory and the evidence in order to make them agree. In this way they rescued the theory from refutation; but they did so at the price of adopting a device which made it irrefutable. They thus gave a "conventionalist twist" to the theory; and by this stratagem they destroyed its much advertised claim to scientific status.

I see this same "soothsayer's trick" in the "punctuated equilibrium" response to the Cambrian Explosion and stasis in the geologic record.

Also in reference to my previous post - in an attempt to illustrate why I see historical sciences as inferior to hard sciences, imagine how a jury would react to the summation arguments in a murder trial if the defense said "there is no evidence that my client committed this crime" and the prosecution responded with "just because there's no evidence doesn't mean he didn't do it (the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence)."

Indeed, the judge would have thrown the case out at the beginning rather than waste the court's time.

...I believe betty boop will confirm that our correspondents over the years often replied to unexplained phenomena with remarks such as "a naturalistic explanation would be forthcoming in a few decades." That of course is a statement of faith though they protested it was not.

Oh yes, dearest sister in Christ, I can testify to that! Certain Darwinist correspondents always absolutely refused to see what was patently obvious to others: That their confidence in the success of science in some (possibly remote) future to explain the (so-far) unexplainable IS a "faith statement." Such folks were true believers, accolytes of an ersatz-religion, Darwinism. At bottom, all their claims rested on faith, the principle claim being that there is no-God, either to begin or sustain the natural world in any way, shape, or form.

That is, they constantly propounded the idea that our world and the entire Universe can be exhaustively explained on the basis of naturalistic principles alone. The Supernatural is denied on principle.

Evidently such folks do not even bother to inquire into the authority on which those same naturalistic principles must rest for their own validity. They simply do not ask this question. Which to me simply provides additional evidence that their entire quasi-religious edifice is grounded in pure faith.

Atheism requires the plenitude argument, that anything that can happen, did. They lost the steady state universe model but must have hope in an infinity past in order to consider themselves bright in denying God the Creator.

It's a shell game. We are not fooled or amused.

By the way, we see similar goalpost moving in the reaction to the unexplained phenomenum of information content of DNA. Here they appeal to panspermia. In effect, if it cannot be explained by material/efficient cause on earth then appeal to alien seeding for final cause. IOW, they are saying that "aliens are ok in a clinch, but the word "God" is obscene and not to be mentioned in public..."

In the absence of space, things cannot exist.

In the absence of time, events cannot occur.

Both space and time are required for physical causation.

So in effect, evidently to keep the religious at bay the physical cosmologists popularized variations of the multiple universe theories, e.g. this universe was spawned from a previous one which was spawned from a previous one and so on. The theories amount to nothing more than "moving the goalpost"  relegating the issue of the beginning of space and time to some prior universe.

If one's "doctrine" requires one to deny God, then I suppose any substitute will do to fill in the resultant Void. Why not space aliens? Yeah, that's right! LOLOL!

LOLOL! It is amusing how they are willing to accept the possibility of space aliens to avoid talking about God the Creator.

Certain Darwinist correspondents always absolutely refused to see what was patently obvious to others: That their confidence in the success of science in some (possibly remote) future to explain the (so-far) unexplainable IS a "faith statement." Such folks were true believers, accolytes of an ersatz-religion, Darwinism. At bottom, all their claims rested on faith, the principle claim being that there is no-God, either to begin or sustain the natural world in any way, shape, or form.

Well and truly said, dearest sister in Christ, thank you so very much for your insights!

So in effect, evidently to keep the religious at bay the physical cosmologists popularized variations of the multiple universe theories, e.g. this universe was spawned from a previous one which was spawned from a previous one and so on. The theories amount to nothing more than "moving the goalpost"  relegating the issue of the beginning of space and time to some prior universe.

P.S.: Dearest sister in Christ, just one further observation. Here you give a splendid illustration of the problem of Infinite Regression. I understand that, in mathematics, if one obtains an infinite regression as a result, this is usually a sign that there is something dreadfully "wrong" about one's equations....

Aristotle proposed that nothing could be either knowable or meaningful under a universal condition of infinite causal regression. Which is probably why he introduced the idea of a primal First Cause  the Unmoved Mover which causes the Cosmos to exist. He argued that, among other things, reason itself would be impossible absent a first-cause Origin of the Cosmos.

535
posted on 03/12/2012 11:18:48 AM PDT
by betty boop
(We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye.  William Blake)

What the Darwinists consistently avoid is the FACT that at some point there HAD TO BE a Creator, even if that Creator did nothing more than "get the ball rolling."

The proponents of the "big bang" theory cannot answer the fact that the particles that eventually combined to form atom DID NOT CREATE THEMSELVES. As you noted with the infinite regression fallacy, these particles could not have emanated from nothing.

536
posted on 03/12/2012 11:34:16 AM PDT
by wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

Thank you so much for your insights and encouragements, dearest sister in Christ!

Truly, infinite regression of causes are impossible. To visualize why this is so, consider dominoes. A domino falling over was hit a previous domino that fell over and so on. If there were no starting domino which fell (no first cause) then no dominoes would have fallen. But we see fallen dominoes therefore there was a first cause.

Astrologers were greatly impressed, and misled, by what they believed to be confirming evidence  so much so that they were quite unimpressed by any unfavorable evidence. Moreover, by making their interpretations and prophesies sufficiently vague they were able to explain away anything that might have been a refutation of the theory had the theory and the prophesies been more precise. In order to escape falsification they destroyed the testability of their theory. It is a typical soothsayer's trick to predict things so vaguely that the predictions can hardly fail: that they become irrefutable.

And therein lies the secret of the "magician's trick," the "Magic of the Extreme" first demonstrated in the intellectual life of Frederich Nietzsche, as subsequently adumbrated by the great German-American philosopher of history Eric Voegelin, my long-time teacher  the "charm," the "Venus eye that fascinates," the "seductive force that emanates" so as to prevent us from seeing what the "left" and "right" hands [e.g., Good and Evil] are actually doing in the actual world....

Why this stratagem works so well nowadays is completely beyond my comprehension. It seems the only explanation is: Increasingly, the People have lost touch with Truth....

Thank you oh so very much, dearest sister in Christ, for your magnificent  and deeply penetrating and luminous  essay/post!

539
posted on 03/12/2012 2:07:46 PM PDT
by betty boop
(We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye.  William Blake)

My paraphrasing was an accurate assessment of the Popper quote that was posted earlier. Being able to rephrase an idea in one's own words is the best demonstration one can make of one's comprehension of the idea. The corollary that once falsified, a theory is no longer a theory, is implicit.

You continue to insist that your quote from Popper was "an accurate assessment" in the face a at least a few people who, so far, are on record as rejecting your assessment, I gather on logical and evidentiary grounds.... No matter. Let the games begin.

You wrote:

...this particular Popper quote is to introduce by inferrence the notion that the Theory of Evolution is untested and untestable, without actually having to present evidence to support that notion (because such evidence does not exist).

If this is what Popper is saying, then it seems to me he's not telling us anything we don't already know: To wit: The Theory of Evolution (as an indisputably, thorough-goingly historical science) is completely untestable by means of Bacon's Scientific Method.

You seize onto the idea of "false dichotomies," but I don't really see you demonstrate any.

You say that "no evidence exists" that can disprove Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Well, since I have found plenty of disconfirming evidence by now, how are we ever to get "on the same page" again, so as to have a rational discourse about the facts of such matters?

Arrrgghhhhh! I pray for truthful communication and understanding with/among my fellow human beings at all times.

So, where do you and I, dear exDemMom, go from here?

540
posted on 03/12/2012 2:36:59 PM PDT
by betty boop
(We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye.  William Blake)

I'll begin with a conclusion: One cannot reason with an "ideologist," a/k/a ideologue.

Eric Voegelin, the great GermanAmerican philosopher of history and of Spirit gave a perceptive, penetrating description of the underlying problem leading to this conclusion in his marvelous essay, "On Debate and Existence" (1967)  in which he also put his finger on the cause of the problem:

In our capacity as political scientists, historians, or philosophers we all have had occasion at one time or another to engage in debate with ideologists  whether communists or intellectuals of a persuasion closer to home. And we all have discovered on such occasions that no agreement, or even an honest disagreement, could be reached, because the exchange of argument was disturbed by a profound difference of attitude with regard to all fundamental questions of human existence  with regard to the nature of man, to his place in the world, to his place in society and history, to his relation to God. Rational argument could not prevail because the partner to the discussion did not accept as binding for himself the matrix of reality in which all specific questions concerning our existence as human beings are ultimately rooted; he has overlaid the reality of existence with another mode of existence that Robert Musil has called the Second Reality. The argument could not achieve results, it had to falter and peter out, as it became increasingly clear that not argument was pitched against argument, but that behind the appearance of a rational debate there lurked the difference of two modes of existence, of existence in truth and existence in untruth. The universe of rational discourse collapses, we may say, when the common ground of existence in reality has disappeared. [Emphasis added]

From this point, I just want to fly off and try to see the Darwinist "second reality" in the Big Picture, in its full ideological proportions.

First, some "givens":

(1) Charles Darwin's Evolution Theory is a fine example of Nineteenth-Century science: At bottom, it is constructed on the basis of Newtonian mechanics.

(2) As such, it "reduces" all natural phenomena to material and efficient causes only. The paradigm here is "matter in its motions": Brute inorganic matter is posited as the cause of all things, including the rise of Life, of Mind, of human societies.

But nobody seems interested in asking this question: If the motions of matter are not in some way "lawful," then how can they produce anything other than accidents? Or are we to think that Life and Mind are "accidents?" Maybe even "accidents" in need of "correcting?"

But if we are to regard the motions of matter as "lawful," the next question just naturally comes: Who is the lawgiver, the Truthgiver, who authenticates the laws?

(3) Any and all consideration of Final Cause operating in Nature is streng verboten. Don't even go there.

It's clear to me that species evolve. But it's also clear to me that species do not evolve into other, novel species. There is nothing in the "book of Nature" that can tell me otherwise. (I.e.; on the basis of evidence and experience).

But here's a tantalizing question: Since ToE tacitly assumes that "progress" in "fitness" is necessary for species survival, does it not also allow for the possibility of the devolution of a species, unto its own extinction?

Put another way, an individual of a species must be "fit" to breed, thus to pass on a "fit" inheritance to his descendants. Thus do species "survive."

But what if a member of the species is unfit to breed in the first place? In many human cases nowadays largely owing (I imagine) to contempt for Nature's way of doing things?

It seems clear to me that Nature is deadly serious about sex as essentially purposed to procreation, not recreation....

Not breeding deplenishes Nature's potentialities in the (non-existent) next generation....

Looks like devolution to me.

Also it looks strangely "machine-like" to me. It's as if a certain part of the "intelligentsia" have parted company with the human realm altogether, finding machine-like models of thought more congenial to, and consistent with, their worldview, methods, and purposes.

LOLOL! Though such folk routinely deny Final Cause in principle, they implicitly rely on one or more of them just to get through the day. Anytime we're working towards a goal, a final cause is already manifest to guide our proceedings.

At this point, I'm just scratching my head, wondering where such deniers of First Reality come from; why they reject essential truths about the very structure of Reality in which they necessarily exist; why they seem to reject the human condition in principle....

Very troubling. Much gloom here. It seems to me that we, as Americans, are a divided society right now  divided along the lines sketched out in the above. But what it all finally comes down to is this:

Are we as a people to live in truth, or in untruth?

May God be with us! May He continue to bless the American people!

Thank you ever so much for writing, dearest sister in Christ!

543
posted on 03/14/2012 1:48:41 PM PDT
by betty boop
(We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye.  William Blake)

Thank you oh so very much for your splendid essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!

We certainly have had our share of "Second Reality" correspondents over the years. The replies we get are often completely irrelevant to the issues on the table. Debating someone who lives in a second reality is futile.

I strongly agree with your three "givens!"

But nobody seems interested in asking this question: If the motions of matter are not in some way "lawful," then how can they produce anything other than accidents? Or are we to think that Life and Mind are "accidents?" Maybe even "accidents" in need of "correcting?"

Well and truly said. Indeed, for an atheist to deny God, he cannot permit a final cause in his Second Reality - and he must have the plenitude argument (anything that can happen, did) because whatever is can only be the result of accidents just as you say.

...for an atheist to deny God, he cannot permit a final cause in his Second Reality  and he must have the plenitude argument (anything that can happen, did) because whatever is can only be the result of accidents just as you say.

Such a worldview strikes me as profoundly irrational. In such a world, meaning becomes impossible; for a series of accidents  even an "eternal" one  does not furnish universal criteria for distinguishing and judging. Human language could not have evolved under such conditions. Science itself would be impossible.

To me, the atheist worldview is profoundly false for these reasons among others.

Yet if a man wants to live in a Second Reality like this, it is his right to do so as matter of private conscience.

The public problem is: There are ideologists of this type who will not rest until their preferred Second Reality becomes mandatory for the rest of us.

Just some thoughts, dearest sister in Christ, FWTW. Thank you ever so much for writing, and for your kind words of support!

545
posted on 03/16/2012 9:24:41 AM PDT
by betty boop
(We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye.  William Blake)

...since that worldview is self justified, i.e. there is no thing and no One against which it accepts comparison.

It is "self-authenticating": It rejects any Truth at all that is not sui generis. Holders of this view refuse in principle to be judged, either by God or man.

This seems not what the great pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus had in mind in his description of a "public man."

Basically, Heraclitus' "public man" was a man well aware of the fact that "the Logos is one and common" for all men  Logos meaning the Truth of Reality, Alpha to Omega. Man does not determine the conditions of Reality. Rather, he is a part and participant of/in it.

If I get Heraclitus right, it would appear that our contemporary self-exiles unto Second Realities qualify for the other basic Heraclitean category of humanity, the private man. Heraclitus compares such to dreamers, to men "turning aside into their own private worlds." Such men reject in principle the idea: The Logos is "one and common," from which ultimate criterion flows every good principle for the truthful order of Nature, of human souls and thus, of human societies. [I just designate such folks as "lotus eaters"....]

Seems to me Heraclitus was a pretty good psychologist.... He seems to have anticipated (by about 2,000 years) our modern-day Existentialists' elaboration of the psychological principles of existential angst and self alienation....

Heraclitus just called them "dreamers"  i.e., men out of touch with Reality.

Well, enuf for now, dearest sister in Christ. It is such a blessing to have you to speak with about these matters. Thank you ever so much for writing!

547
posted on 03/16/2012 12:23:52 PM PDT
by betty boop
(We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye.  William Blake)

Book DescriptionPublication Date: June 1, 1994 In this book, Dr. Soyfer, a former Soviet scientist who had met Lysenko, documents the destruction of science and scientists under the influence of Lysenko. Contrary to numerous opinions, Lysenko was an poorly educated agronomist who happened to have been in the right place at the right time: In the '30s, "Pravda" wrote him up as a pioneering scientist. Recognizing that newspapers and popular support could fuel his rise to the top of Soviet society, he set about making a name for himself as a scientist in non-academic journals and periodicals. His peasant upbringing and miraculous findings--never empirically proven or duplicated--made him a star proletarian scientist, the kind needed to bring about true Communism.

Along his way to the top, he was assisted by many people who thought him a sincere, but ill preparted, scientist; he later had many of these people purged after gaining the almost total support of Stalin and Khrushchev. His grand claims of producing superior cattle and wheat, among other things, consistently failed, yet no one dared oppose or even question his policies. Whether to propel himself upward, bring down the academics he apparently detested, or protect himself and his "science", Lysenko nearly eliminated all serious work in genetics, agriculture, and biology from the '30s into the '60s. Numerous scientists were exiled, fired, or executed during his reign as the people's scientist; according to the author, the effects still linger in Russia.

An amazing story of how, when politics decrees what science is acceptable and how it is going to work in the political paradigm, the results can be tragic.

The attempt to bend science to an ideology had severe consequences in the USSR (as it also did in China). People were executed, millions starved to death, and those countries are still trying to rebuild their science programs. They send students to the US to learn how to be scientists.

I should point out that it does not matter which ideology you try to cram science into. Science simply cannot function as an ideological support tool.

548
posted on 03/16/2012 4:55:11 PM PDT
by exDemMom
(Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)

Really?! Youve previously informed us (in #512 and #520) that you had never heard of Karl Popper. (Karl Popper is almost unknown among scientists. I do not recall ever hearing his name before)

Thanks to the Internet, I can quickly look up Popper (and just about anyone else). My assessment is that he was attempting to describe the scientific method from an outsider's point of view; his view of it was rather simplistic and inaccurate. I have also learned that he, like many others, is often quoted out of context by advocates of "creation science".

Apparently this thread has made you acquainted with the mysterious and obscure Karl Popper. Further, it would appear that even so eminent and acclaimed a modern scientist as Stephen Hawking knows of the nebulous Mr. Popper (as do most all scientists, if the truth be acknowledged).

Actually, that quote did not indicate whether Dr. Hawking is aware of Popper. The author of that Wikipedia article was comparing a statement of Dr. Hawking's to a statement made by Popper. I would not make any assumptions about whom other scientists may have heard of; by the paucity of mentions of Popper in the scientific literature, the failure of any of my colleagues to ever mention him, and the utter lack of mention in any science course, seminar, meeting, etc., I have ever attended, I would guess that he is as unknown to most scientists as he was to me just a few days ago.

Now youre having a continuing discussion on Mr. Popper with a few other correspondents, so I will leave you to your discussions, following its progress with interest.

In the meantime, the observations you attribute to Mr. Hawking represent a brief summation of two thousand years thinking of Western Civilization Philosophy on the subject of the Scientific Method upon which hangs the entire future of your chosen career.

The scientific method was not developed by philosophers, but by scientists. Science and philosophy are, as far as I can tell, diametric opposites. Throughout undergraduate and graduate school, the subject of philosophy never came up.

549
posted on 03/16/2012 5:35:44 PM PDT
by exDemMom
(Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.